DISOBEDIENCE TO CONGRESS IS A CRIME
By Judge Marlo Campanilla
Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution provides: "The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committee may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.” To implement this provision, Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code punishes a person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before Congress or its committees, refuses, without legal excuse to obey such summons.
It is axiomatic that the power of legislative investigation includes the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. To consider summon as having been “duly” issued, the inquiry or investigation, which the person summoned is required to appear as witness, must be in the aid of legislation.
No person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before either House (or be held liable for disobedience Congress), unless his testimony is required in a matter into which that House has jurisdiction to inquire. (Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950)
Failure to attend in a congressional hearing in the aid of legislation constitutes disobedience to Congress
If the inquiry is in the aid of legislation, Congress can compel the attendance of witnesses even though there is pending case in court, which involves issues intimately related to the subject of inquiry. (See: Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institution and Currencies, G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007)
Failure to attend in a congressional investigation of criminal suspects without a contemplated legislation is not disobedience to Congress
In Bengzon, Jr. vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20,1991, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued summon to petitioners in connection with investigation to find out whether or not persons committed a graft-related crime. There is no contemplated legislation in the investigation. The suspects may not be compelled by the Committee to appear, testify and produce evidence before it because inquiry is not in aid of legislation.
Failure to attend in question hour is not disobedience to Congress
Attendance in question hour is not mandatory. Congress may only “request” executive officer to appear therein. (Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. 169777 April 20, 2006) It is submitted that failure of an executive officer to appear in a question hour is not constitutive of the crime of disobedience to Congress.
REFUSAL TO OBEY SUMMON
An order issued by the President prohibiting a military officer from attending legislative investigation is a legal excuse for disobeying summon issued by Congress. Military officer, who comply with the directive of the President not to attend a legislative inquiry, should not be held liable for disobedience to Congress because of the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order of a superior (Article 11, par. 6).
In Gudani vs. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006, the President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief. Where a military officer is torn between obeying the President and obeying the Senate, the Court will without hesitation affirm that the officer has to choose the President. After all, the Constitution prescribes that it is the President, and not the Senate, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The principle in Gudani case is only applicable if the person summoned by Congress is a military officer. Order issued the President prohibiting executive officer from attending legislative investigation is not a legal excuse for disobeying summon issued by Congress. In Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. 169777 April 20, 2006, the President could not impose a blanket prohibition barring executive officials from testifying before Congress without the President’s consent notwithstanding the invocation of executive privilege to justify such prohibition.
The President and Supreme Court Justices are exempt from the power of inquiry by Congress. Hence, they cannot be held liable for disobedience to Congress.
Since executive power is vested in him, the President is beyond the reach of Congress except through the power of impeachment. It is based on her being the highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a long-standing custom.
By the same token, members of the Supreme Court are also exempt from this power of inquiry. Unlike the Presidency, judicial power is vested in a collegial body; hence, each member thereof is exempt on the basis not only of separation of powers but also on the fiscal autonomy and the constitutional independence of the judiciary (Senate vs. Ermita, supra).
PS. Mga ganito ang trip ko basahin. May legal basis hindi yung mga ekek from hindi nmn legal expert
. Daming hanash ng "experts" at well researched people sana may legal basis din hindi feelings or common sense or worst morality ang pinagkukunan.
Hindi ito controlling kasi legal opinion nya lang but backed by law so hindi mema lang si Judge. Hindi din ito product ng "research" lang kasi si Judge pinag aralan nya to at ngayon tinuturo nya. Law book author pa siya.
May mga tumama ata sa katas ng google
.
By Judge Marlo Campanilla
Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution provides: "The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committee may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.” To implement this provision, Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code punishes a person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before Congress or its committees, refuses, without legal excuse to obey such summons.
It is axiomatic that the power of legislative investigation includes the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. To consider summon as having been “duly” issued, the inquiry or investigation, which the person summoned is required to appear as witness, must be in the aid of legislation.
No person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before either House (or be held liable for disobedience Congress), unless his testimony is required in a matter into which that House has jurisdiction to inquire. (Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950)
Failure to attend in a congressional hearing in the aid of legislation constitutes disobedience to Congress
If the inquiry is in the aid of legislation, Congress can compel the attendance of witnesses even though there is pending case in court, which involves issues intimately related to the subject of inquiry. (See: Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institution and Currencies, G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007)
Failure to attend in a congressional investigation of criminal suspects without a contemplated legislation is not disobedience to Congress
In Bengzon, Jr. vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20,1991, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued summon to petitioners in connection with investigation to find out whether or not persons committed a graft-related crime. There is no contemplated legislation in the investigation. The suspects may not be compelled by the Committee to appear, testify and produce evidence before it because inquiry is not in aid of legislation.
Failure to attend in question hour is not disobedience to Congress
Attendance in question hour is not mandatory. Congress may only “request” executive officer to appear therein. (Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. 169777 April 20, 2006) It is submitted that failure of an executive officer to appear in a question hour is not constitutive of the crime of disobedience to Congress.
REFUSAL TO OBEY SUMMON
An order issued by the President prohibiting a military officer from attending legislative investigation is a legal excuse for disobeying summon issued by Congress. Military officer, who comply with the directive of the President not to attend a legislative inquiry, should not be held liable for disobedience to Congress because of the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order of a superior (Article 11, par. 6).
In Gudani vs. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006, the President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief. Where a military officer is torn between obeying the President and obeying the Senate, the Court will without hesitation affirm that the officer has to choose the President. After all, the Constitution prescribes that it is the President, and not the Senate, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The principle in Gudani case is only applicable if the person summoned by Congress is a military officer. Order issued the President prohibiting executive officer from attending legislative investigation is not a legal excuse for disobeying summon issued by Congress. In Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. 169777 April 20, 2006, the President could not impose a blanket prohibition barring executive officials from testifying before Congress without the President’s consent notwithstanding the invocation of executive privilege to justify such prohibition.
The President and Supreme Court Justices are exempt from the power of inquiry by Congress. Hence, they cannot be held liable for disobedience to Congress.
Since executive power is vested in him, the President is beyond the reach of Congress except through the power of impeachment. It is based on her being the highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a long-standing custom.
By the same token, members of the Supreme Court are also exempt from this power of inquiry. Unlike the Presidency, judicial power is vested in a collegial body; hence, each member thereof is exempt on the basis not only of separation of powers but also on the fiscal autonomy and the constitutional independence of the judiciary (Senate vs. Ermita, supra).
PS. Mga ganito ang trip ko basahin. May legal basis hindi yung mga ekek from hindi nmn legal expert
. Daming hanash ng "experts" at well researched people sana may legal basis din hindi feelings or common sense or worst morality ang pinagkukunan. Hindi ito controlling kasi legal opinion nya lang but backed by law so hindi mema lang si Judge. Hindi din ito product ng "research" lang kasi si Judge pinag aralan nya to at ngayon tinuturo nya. Law book author pa siya.
May mga tumama ata sa katas ng google
.
Last edited:
.